What if you don't have the means to go to college?
Why do Americans believe that they're entitled to live grand dreams of fulfillment while others tend to their basic needs?
Even this is unsustainable as first generation Mexicans do this work but their children who morph into Americans do not. They're competing for your kids placement in college. Next thing you know, we need more first generation Mexicans here.
Apparently you never learned about the exponential function in that college of yours.
Unlimited immigration would increase employment and reduce poverty ? ? ?
Have you heard of supply and demand? As immigrants flood in, the labor pool increases thereby increasing supply without immediately increasing demand. In order for employment to stay constant, wages have to drop. If wages drop enough to employ the increased labor pool then everyones purchasing power is decreased. This results in a condition where employment is the same as before but wages have sagged. How does this have a positive impact on poverty?
This is just a simplified view without consideration of the fact that most illegal immigrants to the US are from Mexico and know very little english and are predominantly unskilled. This forces them into certain kinds of very low wage employment without any benefits. Because they are employed illegally, they pay no income taxes. They benefit from American society without fully contributing to it (sales tax is about the only way that they contribute back into the system). Because they flood jobs in agribusiness, food production and other menial labor employment, they have severly depressed wages in those sectors to the advantage of their employer while at the same time displacing Americans from those industries.
US domestic oil production peaked in 1970 well before the OPEC problems as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1972-1973.
Of course there is oil in the ground. There will be oil in the ground when we "run out of oil". It's not even economics, but rather the energy return on energy invested. The oil in the ground will be left there because extracting it will consume more energy than the oil can provide.
Since employers are the cause of traffic congestion, why not simply tax employers who's employees work peak hours. Most places of employment would immediately switch (or try to scam the system, but that's easily addressed with penalties that are vastly disproportionate with the offense).
Have you tried lifting your feet off the pavement to balance yourself on the bicycle? This would greatly improve your speed. You can try a pair of training wheels that will keep your balance until you get the hang of it.
Once you learn how to ride a bike on two wheels and gain some fitness, you should be capable of average speeds around 20 mph.
Yes, and all of these replacement sources of energy are just sitting around waiting for us to flick the switch when oil runs dry. It will be as painless as that. Just flick the switch when the market price for oil becomes too uncomfortable.
It figures that when someone comes up with a method to reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources, all it gets is criticizm for not being the 'perfect' solution.
That's the point. There is no perfect solution! Although TDP is an excellent way to recover resources from waste, ultimately, when natural resources run dry, there will to be a decrease in energy consumption and hence a drastic drop in waste generation.
The US has no policy to deal with this. There isn't even a policy to limit energy consumption growth.
The best solution is not even technical, it is socio-economic. Reduce people and reduce per capita consumption.
This already takes into account domestic production which peaked back in 1970. The US, once a major oil supplier, is now a major oil importer.
This is what happens to finite resources. They get used up and you need to look elsewhere. The earth is drying up like a kid's slurpy and all the 7-11's are out of business.
U.S. could end its dependancy upon foreign oil and not have to worry about EVER running out.
This can't end America's dependence on foreign oil. It says so right there in the article
Just converting all the U.S. agricultural waste into oil and gas would yield the energy equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil annually. In 2001 the United States imported 4.2 billion barrels of oil.
According to that arcane knowledge of arithmetic, 4 does not exceed 4.2 ! Therefore, the US will continue its energy dependence on foreign sources.
But wait, there's more...
That's at current domestic oil production levels and present day agricultural efficiencies. Both of these trends do not bode well for the US.
It's interesting that the article used humans as an example:
If a 175-pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water.
Just about the only resource that is growing around the world is people.
Perhaps in the future, the rich will literally be driving the poor.
our kids could all be driving powerful SUVs running on cheap green electric/hydrogen, laughing at their dads who fought wars over oil..
There isn't enough energy in our electric utility infrastructure at present to provide for our transportation needs without oil. Humans have already peaked in per capita energy consumption decades ago. Our children will continue consuming less energy (in whatever form). These facts don't leave room for "driving powerful SUV's" in the future.
Your first statement about going to public transportation made a lot more sense.
Now about this quip in the article:
Ways to break the tyranny of oil are coming into view. Governments need to promote them. Replacing pseudo-tyranny with real tyranny is not much of a solution.
If you enjoy the benefit of living in a society, then you also need to contribute. A succesful society needs a forward looking energy policy. Market feedback is insufficient because the time frame for infrastructure change is much longer than the time frame for resource depletion.
A bicycle requires a minute fraction of the amount of energy that it takes to manufacture a car. So even if you never put a gallon of gas into your automobile, the bicyclist has you beat for the rest of your life.
The 2 to at most 3 times the caloric intake increase for riding a bike, is miniscule compared to energy needed for discovery, extraction, storage, transportation, refining and retailing of petroluem. Obviously, petroleum has a very high return on energy invested, but ultimately it will run out and cause far more impact to the environment in the process.
the "experts" and pundits also happen to be the ones benefitting from government funding sent in their direction as a result of reprioritization. note the following article quote:
"I believe space is the place we will fight in the next 20 years," said Haver, now vice president for intelligence strategy at Northrop Grumman Mission Systems.
so they are simply jockeying for position on the government's perceived threat pareto.
never mind that in the same time frame, national energy policy will leave us earth bound.
space will clean itself up as industrialized societies starve for energy in the coming decades. as orbits decay, there won't be anything left to fight over.
unfortunately, reality doesn't generate revenue for Northrop Grumman. so it is necessary to alter perception instead.
The EU requires a level of standards and practices of countries which are part of the EU. There is no problem with free trade among equals. The problem arises when trade is done between asymetric parties like the US and China. This is not free trade. It's simply wealth redistribution from those displaced workers to executive management since no company immediately drops prices as a result of having outsourced to China. When's the last time you heard a tech company declare dividends as a result of outsourcing overseas?
This is a problem with predominantly management driven capitalism. Unless, somebody can show me otherwise, I don't see owner driven capitalism doing this!
If someone comes out with Widgets and you think they're a great thing, but you have no idea what the material value is and there's never really been anything you can compare them to*, you have to base your decision SOLELY on your emotional reaction to the product. If that reaction is strong, you buy the product.
precisely the method debeers has employed to brainwash all the women in my life that diamonds are forever!
logic is powerless against well conditioned emotion.
Slashdot Mirror
What if you don't have the means to go to college?
Why do Americans believe that they're entitled to live grand dreams of fulfillment while others tend to their basic needs?
Even this is unsustainable as first generation Mexicans do this work but their children who morph into Americans do not. They're competing for your kids placement in college. Next thing you know, we need more first generation Mexicans here.
Apparently you never learned about the exponential function in that college of yours.
Have you heard of supply and demand? As immigrants flood in, the labor pool increases thereby increasing supply without immediately increasing demand. In order for employment to stay constant, wages have to drop. If wages drop enough to employ the increased labor pool then everyones purchasing power is decreased. This results in a condition where employment is the same as before but wages have sagged. How does this have a positive impact on poverty?
This is just a simplified view without consideration of the fact that most illegal immigrants to the US are from Mexico and know very little english and are predominantly unskilled. This forces them into certain kinds of very low wage employment without any benefits. Because they are employed illegally, they pay no income taxes. They benefit from American society without fully contributing to it (sales tax is about the only way that they contribute back into the system). Because they flood jobs in agribusiness, food production and other menial labor employment, they have severly depressed wages in those sectors to the advantage of their employer while at the same time displacing Americans from those industries.
Please crack some books on the subject.
Of course there is oil in the ground. There will be oil in the ground when we "run out of oil". It's not even economics, but rather the energy return on energy invested. The oil in the ground will be left there because extracting it will consume more energy than the oil can provide.
Since employers are the cause of traffic congestion, why not simply tax employers who's employees work peak hours. Most places of employment would immediately switch (or try to scam the system, but that's easily addressed with penalties that are vastly disproportionate with the offense).
I have this great idea to charge for road use, a tax on gasoline!
Some other ideas that are not quite as direct are:
car registration fees
truck and trailer registration fees
vehicle taxes
insurance premium taxes
Duh
Have you tried lifting your feet off the pavement to balance yourself on the bicycle? This would greatly improve your speed. You can try a pair of training wheels that will keep your balance until you get the hang of it.
Once you learn how to ride a bike on two wheels and gain some fitness, you should be capable of average speeds around 20 mph.
Yes, and all of these replacement sources of energy are just sitting around waiting for us to flick the switch when oil runs dry. It will be as painless as that. Just flick the switch when the market price for oil becomes too uncomfortable.
That's the point. There is no perfect solution! Although TDP is an excellent way to recover resources from waste, ultimately, when natural resources run dry, there will to be a decrease in energy consumption and hence a drastic drop in waste generation.
The US has no policy to deal with this. There isn't even a policy to limit energy consumption growth.
The best solution is not even technical, it is socio-economic. Reduce people and reduce per capita consumption.
There is ZERO political awareness of this issue!
This already takes into account domestic production which peaked back in 1970. The US, once a major oil supplier, is now a major oil importer.
This is what happens to finite resources. They get used up and you need to look elsewhere. The earth is drying up like a kid's slurpy and all the 7-11's are out of business.
This can't end America's dependence on foreign oil. It says so right there in the article
According to that arcane knowledge of arithmetic, 4 does not exceed 4.2 ! Therefore, the US will continue its energy dependence on foreign sources.
But wait, there's more...
That's at current domestic oil production levels and present day agricultural efficiencies. Both of these trends do not bode well for the US.
It's interesting that the article used humans as an example:
Just about the only resource that is growing around the world is people.
Perhaps in the future, the rich will literally be driving the poor.
There isn't enough energy in our electric utility infrastructure at present to provide for our transportation needs without oil. Humans have already peaked in per capita energy consumption decades ago. Our children will continue consuming less energy (in whatever form). These facts don't leave room for "driving powerful SUV's" in the future.
Your first statement about going to public transportation made a lot more sense.
Have you heard of the Price-Anderson Act? Do you realize that France is socialist? Have you seen KWh rates for coal, gas and wind?
What planet do you inhabit?
When oil runs out, there will be a need to replace it but there won't be time because huge replacement industries can't magically appear overnight.
If you enjoy the benefit of living in a society, then you also need to contribute. A succesful society needs a forward looking energy policy. Market feedback is insufficient because the time frame for infrastructure change is much longer than the time frame for resource depletion.
The 2 to at most 3 times the caloric intake increase for riding a bike, is miniscule compared to energy needed for discovery, extraction, storage, transportation, refining and retailing of petroluem. Obviously, petroleum has a very high return on energy invested, but ultimately it will run out and cause far more impact to the environment in the process.
so they are simply jockeying for position on the government's perceived threat pareto.
never mind that in the same time frame, national energy policy will leave us earth bound.
space will clean itself up as industrialized societies starve for energy in the coming decades. as orbits decay, there won't be anything left to fight over.
unfortunately, reality doesn't generate revenue for Northrop Grumman. so it is necessary to alter perception instead.
This is a problem with predominantly management driven capitalism. Unless, somebody can show me otherwise, I don't see owner driven capitalism doing this!
thought i was reading The Onion for a second there.
precisely the method debeers has employed to brainwash all the women in my life that diamonds are forever!
logic is powerless against well conditioned emotion.
sal